Hacker News Reader

Comment by hn_throwaway_99 | Hacker News Reader

People keep saying this, but honestly, does anyone really think it makes one iota of difference?

Fact is that there is a huge paper trail of SBF's malfeasance, nevermind the fact that his co-conspirators appear to be turning against him. If anything, his interviews seemed to be his attempt to argue for negligence over malice in his case.

Yes, SBF is going to prison for a long time. No, I don't think anyone has made a viable argument that his interviews over the past few weeks are likely to make his sentence worse.

View on HN

Yes it has made a difference. In white-collar crimes, prosecutors have to prove intent. That means they have to somehow find evidence that the defendant meant to do various things improperly. SBF has literally given interviews where he has stated the required intent for some of the crimes.

As an unrelated aside, note that this is also a way of punishing lower classes of people more severely. If you shoplift, prosecutors don't have to prove you meant to do that rather than just accidentally failing to pay. Generally laws for intent are for people that legislators can identify with, and there is no intent requirement for people legislators don't personally identify with.

intent matter for a lot of crimes across the board

> SBF has literally given interviews where he has stated the required intent for some of the crimes.

Do you have examples of what you are referring to? As you say, intent matters here. The vast majority of quotes I've seen from his interviews are along the lines of "I suck at accounting", but that he didn't intend to steal funds.

But again, the other reason I don't think it matters is that there were plenty of other recorded examples that do show intent, e.g. cases where SBF was lying on Twitter specifically to try to cover his tracks: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33632472

At least under CA law they do have to prove intent for shoplifting.

>Shoplifting is defined as entering a commercial establishment with an intent to commit larceny while it's open during regular business hours and the value of the property taken, or intended to be taken, is $950 or less. Any other entry into a commercial business with intent to commit larceny is burglary.

I think it does make a difference. It's effectively taunting the prosecutors, who will find ways to retaliate. So prison time either way, but likely more than if he had shut up.

Yes - he easily could've spent a decade out of jail - possibly with quite a lavish life - and ended up serving much less jail time.

So - on basically every account - he would've been far, far better off to STFU.

Point is, there might be enough dirt to convict him without him talking, but there can't be any less with him talking.

It does. His tweets were in the SEC's complaints this morning. Tweets AFTER the collapse.

Hard to say how much difference it would make but why would you give your opponent a freebie?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com